Can a Genetic DNA Test Provide Real Insight on Your Health?

Most of us think of genetic diseases as something that is very rare. We have learned about diseases like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease in school. Those are examples of diseases caused by a rare mutation. If both chromosomes carry the mutation, you have the disease. If not, you don’t.

Can a genetic dna test give you real insight on your health?

We also know that family history is a strong predictor of genetic predisposition. If you are a guy, and most of the males in your family tree have dropped dead of a heart attack at an early age, you can assume you are genetically predisposed to heart disease. If you are a gal and most of the women in your family tree have developed breast cancer at an early age, you can assume you are genetically predisposed to breast cancer.

However, if none of these apply, we assume we are “normal”. We think we’ll probably live to 120. All this healthy lifestyle “stuff” is nice, but it isn’t a priority. It makes me think of Garrison Keillor’s tales of “Lake Wobegon” where all the children were above normal.

What if that weren’t true? What if none of us were normal? What if all of us are predisposed to some disease, perhaps even multiple diseases, and didn’t know it? Would that change how we thought about making the effort to follow a healthy lifestyle?

None Of Us Are Perfect

On one hand, this study (MacArthur et al, Science, 335: 823 – 828, 2012 ) may seem of interest only to geneticists, but its implications are huge. The authors looked at genetic variation among the human genomes sequenced as part of the human genome project. Specifically, they looked for loss of function (LOF) variants – mutations that would either partially or completely prevent the synthesis of a functional protein.

After a very complex genetic analysis they concluded that each of us harbors about ~100 LOF variants (mutations) in our genome.

Some of those mutations were in genes coding for proteins that have no known function. Other mutations coded for proteins whose loss might affect minor things like taste sensation.

Still other mutations were in genes coding for proteins that were redundant because there are other proteins in the cell that can perform the same function (Just as NASA designed the space shuttle with backup systems that could take over if a primary system failed, our bodies are frequently designed with more than one enzyme that can carry out the same function).

And, as you might expect, some of those mutations were in genes associated with known diseases like sickle cell disease or cystic fibrosis – but those mutations were very rare.

However, the authors concluded that each of us harbors about 20 LOF mutations that completely inactivate essential genes and might increase the probability that we will develop certain diseases.

That got me thinking. It validated scientifically something that we have all known instinctively for a long time – none of us are perfect. Or, as my childhood friends might have more cruelly put it: “We’re all defective in one way or another.”

What Does This Mean For You?

Now some of you may be saying: “What does this mean for me?” When you carry this idea through to its ultimate conclusion, the bottom line message is:

1) Nutritional recommendations are based on averages – none of us are average.

2) The identified risk factors for developing diseases are based on averages – none of us are average.

3) Clinical trial results are based on averages – none of us are average.

4) Clinical trials on the benefits and dangers of supplementation are based on averages – none of us are average.

5) Even clinical trials of drug efficacy for treating disease or drug safety are based on averages – none of us are average.

That means lots of the advice you may be getting about your risk of developing disease X, the best way to treat disease X, or the role of supplementation in preventing disease X may be generally true – but it might not be true for you.

So, my advice is not to blindly accept the advice of others about what is right for your body. Learn to listen to your body. Learn what foods work best for you. Learn what exercises just feel right for you. Learn what supplementation does for you.

Don’t ignore your doctor’s recommendations, but don’t be afraid to take on some of the responsibility for your own health. You are a unique individual, and nobody else knows what it is like to be you.

What Can a Genetic DNA Test Tell You About Your Health?

You may be thinking: “If we know all the loss of function (LOF) mutations that cause disease, I should just send my saliva off to one of those companies that promises to give you a genetic DNA test and advise you of all your disease risks.”

Not so fast. It isn’t that simple. Here’s what those genetic testing companies aren’t telling you.

Genetic predisposition to most diseases is caused by multiplemutations that each make small contributions to your disease risk. There are only a few LOF mutations that dramatically increase your risk of major diseases like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. Unless you have one of those rare mutations, you are in the dark about your disease risk.

LOF mutations are just the tip of the iceberg. There are many more mutations that affect regulation of metabolic pathways which impact your health. Many of these mutations are poorly defined at present. You might get a perfect score on your genetic testing and still be at risk for some major diseases.

The effect of LOF mutations on health outcomes varies from person to person. This is a phenomenon that my geneticist colleagues call “penetrance”. Simply put, the effect of any single mutation is modified by the expression of multiple other genes, which also vary from person to person. Your “score” on a genetic testing analysis may not predict your actual risk of disease.

Gene expression is modified by diet, lifestyle, and your environment. I have discussed this in previous articles like “Can Diet Alter Your Genetic Destiny?” and “What Is Epigenetics?”. In short, genes do not determine your destiny. Your healthy lifestyle may protect you from a genetic predisposition to disease. Your unhealthy lifestyle may doom you to poor health in spite of a perfect score on your genetic testing analysis.

I only recommend genetic testing if you have a strong family history of a major disease and plan on working with a certified genetic counselor who can put the results of the analysis into the proper context.

The Bottom Line

A recent study looked at genetic variation among the human genomes sequenced as part of the human genome project. Specifically, the authors looked for loss of function (LOF) variants – mutations that would either partially or completely prevent the synthesis of a functional protein.

After a very sophisticated statistical analysis, the authors concluded that each of us harbors about 20 LOF mutations that completely inactivate essential genes and might increase the probability that we will develop certain diseases.

That means none of us are perfect. None of us are “average”. We all have genetic defects that predispose us to certain diseases. The implications are staggering.

Nutritional recommendations are based on averages – none of us are average.

The identified risk factors for developing diseases are based on averages – none of us are average

Clinical trial results are based on averages – none of us are average.

Clinical trials on the benefits and dangers of supplementation are based on averages – none of us are average.

Even clinical trials of drug efficacy for treating disease or drug safety are based on averages – none of us are average.

That means lots of the advice you may be getting about your risk of developing disease X, the best way to treat disease X, or the role of supplementation in preventing disease X may be generally true – but it might not be true for you.

So, my advice is not to blindly accept the advice of others about what is right for your body. Learn to listen to your body. Learn what foods work best for you. Learn what exercises just feel right for you. Learn what supplementation does for you.

I am not saying we know everything we need to know about genetic predisposition to disease. I’m not saying that genes determine our destiny. I’m not recommending you send off your saliva for a genetic analysis to determine your risk of developing a major disease. To understand why, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Leave a comment

Recent Videos From Dr. Steve Chaney

Latest Article

A Low Carb Diet and Weight Loss

Posted January 15, 2019 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Do Low-Carb Diets Help Maintain Weight Loss?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Traditional diets have been based on counting calories, but are all calories equal? Low-carb enthusiasts have long claimed that diets high in sugar and refined carbs cause obesity. Their hypothesis is based on the fact that high blood sugar levels cause a spike in insulin levels, and insulin promotes fat storage.

The problem is that there has been scant evidence to support that hypothesis. In fact, a recent meta-analysis of 32 published clinical studies (KD Hall and J Guo, Gastroenterology, 152: 1718-1727, 2017 ) concluded that low-fat diets resulted in a higher metabolic rate and greater fat loss than isocaloric low-carbohydrate diets.

However, low-carb enthusiasts persisted. They argued that the studies included in the meta-analysis were too short to adequately measure the metabolic effects of a low-carb diet. Recently, a study has been published in the British Medical Journal (CB Ebbeling et al, BMJ 2018, 363:k4583 ) that appears to vindicate their position.

Are low carb diets best for long term weight loss?

Low-carb enthusiasts claim the study conclusively shows that low-carb diets are best for losing weight and for keeping it off once you have lost it. They are saying that it is time to shift away from counting calories and from promoting low-fat diets and focus on low-carb diets instead if we wish to solve the obesity epidemic. In this article I will focus on three issues:

How good was the study?

What were its limitations?

Are the claims justified?

How Was The Study Designed?

The investigators started with 234 overweight adults (30% male, 78% white, average age 40, BMI 32) recruited from the campus of Framingham State University in Massachusetts. All participants were put on a diet that restricted calories to 60% of estimated needs for 10 weeks. The diet consisted of 45% of calories from carbohydrate, 30% from fat, and 25% from protein. [So much for the claim that the study showed low-carb diets were more effective for weight loss. The diet used for the weight loss portion of the diet was not low-carb.]

During the initial phase of the study 161 of the participants achieved 10% weight loss. These participants were randomly divided into 3 groups for the weight maintenance phase of the study.

The diet composition of the high-carb group was 60% carbohydrate, 20% fat, and 20% protein.

The diet composition of the moderate-carb group was 40% carbohydrate, 40% fat, and 20% protein.

The diet composition of the low-carb group was 20% carbohydrate, 60% fat, and 20% protein.

Other important characteristics of the study were:

The weight maintenance portion of the study lasted 5 months – much longer than any previous study.

All meals were designed by dietitians and prepared by a commercial food service. The meals were either served in a cafeteria or packaged to be taken home by the participants.

The caloric content of the meals was individually adjusted on a weekly basis so that weight was kept within a ± 4-pound range during the 5-month maintenance phase.

Sugar, saturated fat, and sodium were limited and kept relatively constant among the 3 diets.

120 participants made it through the 5-month maintenance phase.

Do Low-Carb Diets Help Maintain Weight Loss?

The results were striking:

The low-carb group burned an additional 278 calories/day compared to the high-carb group and 131 calories/day more than the moderate-carbohydrate group.

These differences were even higher for those individuals with higher insulin secretion at the beginning of the maintenance phase of the study.

These differences lead the authors to hypothesize that low-carb diets might be more effective for weight maintenance than other diets.

What Are The Pros And Cons Of This Study?

This was a very well-done study. In fact, it is the most ambitious and well-controlled study of its kind. However, like any other clinical study, it has its limitations. It also needs to be repeated.

The pros of the study are obvious. It was a long study and the dietary intake of the participants was tightly controlled.

As for cons, here are the three limitations of the study listed by the authors:

#1: Potential Measurement Error: This section of the paper was a highly technical consideration of the method used to measure energy expenditure. Suffice it to say that the method they used to measure calories burned per day may overestimate calories burned in the low-carb group. That, of course, would invalidate the major findings of the study. It is unlikely, but it is why the study needs to be repeated using a different measure of energy expenditure.

#2: Compliance: Although the participants were provided with all their meals, there was no way of being sure they ate them. There was also no way of knowing whether they may have eaten other foods in addition to the food they were provided. Again, this is unlikely, but cannot be eliminated from consideration.

#3: Generalizability: This is simply an acknowledgement that the greatest strength of this study is also its greatest weakness. The authors acknowledged that their study was conducted in such a tightly controlled manner it is difficult to translate their findings to the real world. For example:

Sugar and saturated fat were restricted and were at very similar levels in all 3 diets. In the real world, people consuming a high-carb diet are likely to consume more sugar than people in the other diet groups. Similarly, people consuming the low-carb diet are likely to consume more saturated fat than people in the other diet groups.

Weight was kept constant in the weight maintenance phase by constantly adjusting caloric intake. Unfortunately, this seldom happens in the real world. Most people gain weight once they go off their diet – and this is just as true with low-carb diets as with other diets.

The participants had access to dietitian-designed prepared meals 3 times a day for 5 months. This almost never happens in the real world. The authors said “…these results [their data] must be reconciled with the long-term weight loss trials relying on nutrition education and behavioral counseling that find only a small advantage for low carbohydrate compared with low fat diets according to several recent meta-analyses.” [I would add that in the real world, people do not even have access to nutritional education and behavioral modification.]

What Does This Study Mean For You?

This study shows that under very tightly controlled conditions (dietitian-prepared meals, sugar and saturated fat limited to healthy levels, calories continually adjusted so that weight remains constant) a low-carb diet burns more calories per day than a moderate-carb or high-carb diet. These findings show that it is theoretically possible to increase your metabolic weight and successfully maintain a healthy weight on a low-carb diet. These are the headlines you probably saw. However, a careful reading of the study provides a much more nuanced viewpoint. For example, the fact that the study conditions were so tightly controlled makes it difficult to translate these findings to the real world.

In fact, the authors of the study acknowledged that multiple clinical studies show this almost never happens in the real world. These studies show that most people regain the weight they have lost on low-carb diets. More importantly, the rate of weight regain is virtually identical on low-carb and low-fat diets. Consequently, the authors of the current study concluded “…translation [of their results to the real world] requires exploration in future mechanistic oriented research.” Simply put, the authors are saying that more research is needed to provide a mechanistic explanation for this discrepancy before one can make recommendations that are relevant to weight loss and weight maintenance in the real world.

The authors also discussed the results of their study in light of a recent, well-designed 12-month study (CD Gardener et al, JAMA, 319: 667-669, 2018 ) that showed no difference in weight change between a healthy low-fat versus a healthy low-carbohydrate diet. That study also reported that the results were unaffected by insulin secretion at baseline. The authors of the current study noted that “…[in the previous study] participants were instructed to minimize or eliminate refined grains and added sugars and maximize intake of vegetables. Probably for this reason, the reported glycemic load [effect of the diet on blood sugar levels] of the low-fat diet was very low…and similar to [the low-carb diet].” In short, the authors of the current study were acknowledging that diets which focus on healthy, plant-based carbohydrates and eliminate sugar, refined grains, and processed foods may be as effective as low-carb diets for helping maintain a healthy weight.

This would also be consistent with previous studies showing that primarily plant-based, low-carb diets are more effective at maintaining a healthy weight and better health outcomes long-term than the typical American version of the low-fat diet, which is high in sugar and refined grains. In contrast, meat-based, low-carb diets are no more effective than the American version of the low-fat diet at preventing weight gain and poor health outcomes. I have covered these studies in detail in my book “Slaying The Food Myths.”

Consequently, the lead author of the most recent study has said: “The findings [of this study] do not impugn whole fruits, beans and other unprocessed carbohydrates. Rather, the study suggests that reducing foods with added sugar, flour, and other refined carbohydrates could help people maintain weight loss….” This is something we all can agree on, but strangely this is not reflected in the headlines you may have seen in the media.

The Bottom Line

A recent study compared the calories burned per day on a low-carb, moderate-carb, and high-carb diet. The study concluded that the low-carb diet burned significantly more calories per day than the other two diets and might be suitable for long-term weight control. If confirmed by subsequent studies, this would be the first real evidence that low-carb diets are superior for maintaining a healthy weight.

However, the study has some major limitations. For example, it used a methodology that may overestimate the benefits of a low-carb diet, and it was performed under tightly controlled conditions that can never be duplicated in the real world. As acknowledged by the authors, this study is also contradicted by multiple previous studies. Further studies will be required to confirm the results of this study and show how it can be applied in the real world.

In addition, the kind of carbohydrate in the diet is every bit as important as the amount of carbohydrate. The authors acknowledge that the differences seen in their study apply mainly to carbohydrates from sugar, refined grains, and processed foods. They advocate diets with low glycemic load (small effects on blood sugar and insulin levels) and acknowledge this can also be achieved by incorporating low-glycemic load, plant-based carbohydrates into your diet. This is something we all can agree on, but strangely this is not reflected in the headlines you may have seen in the media.

Finally, clinical studies report averages, but none of us are average. When you examine the data from the current study, it is evident that some participants burned more calories per hour on the high-carb diet than other participants did on the low carb diet. That reinforces the observation that some people lose weight more effectively on low-carb diets while others lose weight more effectively on low-fat diets. If you are someone who does better on a low-carb diet, the best available evidence suggests you will have better long-term health outcomes on a primarily plant-based, low-carb diet such as the low-carb version of the Mediterranean diet.

For more details read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Are You Confused By Conflicting Nutrition Information?If so, this book is for you
For more informationCLICK HERE

Meet The Experts

The statements in these articles have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. Any Health Care changes should be made only after consulting with your Doctor and licensed Health Care Advisor.

Disclaimer: At Health Tips from the Professor, we only recommend products that we’ve either personally checked out ourselves, or that come from people we know and trust. For doing so, we may receive a commission.

NOTE: If URLs do not appear as live links in your e-mail program, please cut and paste the full URL into the location or address field of your browser.